2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

MarkCorrigan said:
Why do you need a semi-auto though?

I mean, why not just get a bolt or lever action hunting rifle?
Click to expand...

Probably the same reason why people buy a BMW M5 and then drive within the speed limit with it. Or buy a Jeep and never go off road with it. Or buy a Navy SEAL diving watch, but take it off when they wash their hands, because they don't want it to get damaged.

Some items just have -apart from their practical values- a history that gives their owners a certain feeling.

Given the chance I'd probably own some AK-47 variant. Just because it marked a turning point in gun design, it's effect on world history, the fact that it is still one of the best rifles and because it is a design classic, just like the iPod and the Porsche 911.

Everyone who watches enough action movies knows: guns are also fashion items. Guns are very consciously allocated to fictional characters, along with hairstyles, cars and clothing. This is essentially product placement (don't know if the gun manufacturers pay for it) and affects culture.

I still have to get used to James Bond not using the Walther PPK, it went so well with the Omega sports watch.
 
Eddie Dane said:
Probably the same reason why people buy a BMW M5 and then drive within the speed limit with it. Or buy a Jeep and never go off road with it. Or buy a Navy SEAL diving watch, but take it off when they wash their hands, because they don't want it to get damaged.
Click to expand...

None of these items, however, are designed principally to kill people/animals. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

Everyone who watches enough action movies knows: guns are also fashion items. Guns are very consciously allocated to fictional characters, along with hairstyles, cars and clothing. This is essentially product placement (don't know if the gun manufacturers pay for it) and affects culture.
Click to expand...

I really, really hope you're saying that tongue in cheek.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
...snip...

I really, really hope you're saying that tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...

You can assume anything that is "real" in a TV show or movie that is prominent has clearance from the owner of the trademark and so on, I am sure guns are "styled" to a character just as the sunglasses and shoes would be.
 
Architect said:
I really, really hope you're saying that tongue in cheek.
Click to expand...

Nope.

From the art director's point of view: a character should wear, own, drive and shoot items that fit him/her. As well as the time period, off course.

From the product placement point of view:
I know that video games cannot just use existing car brands in a racing game. The brands are registered and you need permission. You may have to pay for that permission.*
Or if the game is very popular, the car brand may have to pay to have their car included in the game. It can go both ways.

You can bet that Berretta sold a whole lot of handguns to the civilian market because Mel Gibson was waving one around in the Lethal Weapon franchise.



*Even more weird: city landmarks are protected.
Of you want to shoot a movie scene with the Eiffel tower in the background, you better contact the city of Paris and get permission.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
None of these items, however, are designed principally to kill people/animals. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
Click to expand...

I think it's a valid comparison. If you think it's OK for people to own shotguns or rifles for sport shooting, then this is just an extension of that. People that own AK-47 style guns in the US typically break them out maybe once a year to shoot at targets*, like the expensive sports car that spends most of the time in the garage. They're too bulky and too expensive for criminals, and the ammo is too expensive for most people to shoot them frequently. They've historically been more "sport" weapons than home defense or criminal weapons.

I could see making an argument that the high ammo capacity makes them dangerous in the hands of spree killers, but that doesn't invalidate the analogy, IMO.



*This is totally my own perception. I don't know how to even go about getting data on how often a particular type of weapon is fired.
 
ZirconBlue said:
I think it's a valid comparison. If you think it's OK for people to own shotguns or rifles for sport shooting, then this is just an extension of that.
Click to expand...

Except it really isn't, because there's absolutely no need for a semi-auto anything. You can hunt just as (if not more) efficiently with a single shot weapon, and I can think of no sport which uses more than a one shot gun (double shotguns possibly an exception).

It's just pointless techno-chauvinism, it's big, loud and fires a lot of bullets, therefore it's cool I need one.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Except it really isn't, because there's absolutely no need for a semi-auto anything. You can hunt just as (if not more) efficiently with a single shot weapon, and I can think of no sport which uses more than a one shot gun (double shotguns possibly an exception).

It's just pointless techno-chauvinism, it's big, loud and fires a lot of bullets, therefore it's cool I need one.
Click to expand...


There's no "need" for guns to shoot at clay pigeons, either, but you haven't expressed any hostility toward that form of sport shooting.
 
ZirconBlue said:
There's no "need" for guns to shoot at clay pigeons, either, but you haven't expressed any hostility toward that form of sport shooting.
Click to expand...

OK I will - around here at times when you are out walking your dog it can be bloody dangerous with some of the buffoons they have in the fields shooting at clay pigeons out of season. If it was up to me I'd ban the bloody "sport" (obviously if it was a sport I enjoyed I'd be up in arms about anyone trying to ban it).
 
ZirconBlue said:
They're too bulky and too expensive for criminals, and the ammo is too expensive for most people to shoot them frequently. They've historically been more "sport" weapons than home defense or criminal weapons.

I could see making an argument that the high ammo capacity makes them dangerous in the hands of spree killers, but that doesn't invalidate the analogy, IMO.
Click to expand...

Martin Bryant did a did a decent job of it with (mainly) a semi-automatic rifle at Port Arthur. And as I said earlier in this thread, after a spate of mass killings in the decade up to 1996, there have been none since bans on semi-automatics and other restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
 
ZirconBlue said:
There's no "need" for guns to shoot at clay pigeons, either, but you haven't expressed any hostility toward that form of sport shooting.
Click to expand...

Incorrect; clay pigeon shooting around here is practice for game shooting.
 
Darat said:
OK I will - around here at times when you are out walking your dog it can be bloody dangerous with some of the buffoons they have in the fields shooting at clay pigeons out of season. If it was up to me I'd ban the bloody "sport"
Click to expand...

All right then. Obviously, if you don't support any sport shooting, then there's no need for any "sport" guns.

(obviously if it was a sport I enjoyed I'd be up in arms about anyone trying to ban it).
Click to expand...

Not literally, I take it? ;)

Architect said:
Incorrect; clay pigeon shooting around here is practice for game shooting.
Click to expand...

Exclusively? No one shoots clay pigeons (or other targets) just for the sport of it?

Huh. Bloodthirsty lot. Me, I like shooting at targets, but don't hunt because I don't like killing things. :boxedin:
 
No, not exclusively. But, around here at least, it's largely a sport of farmers and similar countryside "huntin'shootin'fishin'" types.

Me, I've done it twice. Twice in all my 41 years. I'm such a townie.
 
ZirconBlue said:
There's no "need" for guns to shoot at clay pigeons, either, but you haven't expressed any hostility toward that form of sport shooting.
Click to expand...

I'm not expressing hostility though, I'm asking a genuine question. I see no need for guns either, although I don't have a problem with hunting for food, but I accept that some people will want to shoot at targets.

Why bother witrh something that chambers your rounds for you though? I mean, if you are going to go hunting, or shoot targets, why not just get a bolt action rifle? You're going to be able to shoot animals/targets with it, it's cheaper, it's just as if not more accurate, and it can kill the animal/destroy the target just as well as an AK or a Colt M4, but there's also less scope for accidents because you have only one round to fire at a time, there is less chance of someone being able to down a large number of people, and it is simply unnecessary to be able to spray a number of bullets at something.

I'm not saying assult weapons are evil, I'm saying that it's utterly facile to claim that they're needed for hunting or target shooting. No, they aren't, you (not literally you ZB but a general you) just want a semi automatic. If you actually wanted it JUST to hunt you could buy a bolt action hunting rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom